The Limitations of the Sociological Approach: Alternatives f r o m Italian Communications Research

by Roberto Grandi

A review of the critiques of communications research f rom the sociological, Marxist, and semiological perspectives suggests that the crisis in research deriues in part f rom the current relation of the researcher to society.

In Italy, comrnunications problems are explicitly studied within only a very few universities or institutes. However, certain organizations founded during the late 1960s and 1970s have carried out comninnica- tions studies, including the Italian Group of Socioliiiguistics (estab- lished in 1967), the Italian Association of Semiotic Studies (1970), the International Semiotics Center in Urhino (1971), and the Interdisciplin- ary Center for Communication Sciences ( 1976). An increasing nnrnher of Italian professors have also lieen teaching in disciplines related to communications in the last ten years. Nevertheless, this activity has not yielded very much research.

One reason for this relative dearth of research is that the cli&ctilties faced by the entire Italian university system in the area of research are intensified for the newer disciplines such as conimunications. The little research that is conducted in the univt:rsities is strictly related to instructional considerations. Further, nearly all research that is actually completed depends upon the relationships established by individual professors with those institutes and organizations, private or public, that are willing to provide financing. These organizations include the Na- tional Research Center (Centro Nazionale Kicerche), the Italian public broadcasting corporation RAI, the commercial TV networks, the adver- tising agencies, and some politically affiliated cultural associations.

National and international political interest in mass coniniunications has led to a small increase in the amount of research in the past few

Roberto Grandi is Associate Professor of l la\s Conmrunication at the University of Bologna.

53

Journal of Communication, Summer 1983

years. But the topics of funded research remain limited, since sponsoring organizations seek studies that will help them increase productivity and encourage the sort of bottom line topics that do not always lend themselves to the advancement of scientific theory.

The research carried out in the face of these liniitations reflects varying points of view. As is the case in most countries, researchers in Italy approach communications problems through a heterogeneous blend of theories, methodologies, and disciplines. The most common approaches derive from semiotics, sociolinguistics, sociology, and Marx- ism. Currently, the point of general debate among Italian commnnica- tions researchers and theorists concerns the value of the sociological, primarily empirical, approach to communications research, especially mass communications research (for an account of the origin of the debate, see 7). This national debate reflects the international one; here I relate the details of the former, taking the latter into account.

In general, the communications debate has focused on three aspects of the sociological approach: the

limitations of content analysis; models of the development of the mass media, including effects research; and the

structuralist-functionalist scope of most empirical study.

In defending the sociological approach, Bechelloni (1) notes that the research projects under criticism have arrived at some significant and important conclusions. First, he points out that only after such research has been completed can its limits and potentialities be appraised. Second, he suggests that research in communications effects has been useful in explicating specific modes of access to and reception of messages, citing the role of opinion leaders and opinion groups, aspects of exposure, memorization, and selective perception, and the boomerang effect as examples. The results of these research projects have allowed the effective evaluation of theory on the rnanipulation and creation of mass audiences. Finally, Bechelloni notes (3 ) , although previous scien- tific work has indicated that studies on the content and effects of m a s s culture cannot be the mainstay of mass communications research, by eliminating many initial errors such studies are useful in developing more general theories of communic a t ion.

Criticisms of research methodologies, according to Mauro Wolf (E), are neither novel nor limited to the specific topic of m a s s communica- tions. He alleges that discussion ofthe limitations of research techniques is nowadays a formality, filled with rhetoric and adopted by anyone proposing to study mass communications (12, pp. 31-47). Wolf suggests that researchers use a sociolinguistic approach, focusing on (a) the relationship between comprehension and verbalization; (13) the impor- tance of the experimental situation and possible resulting distortions; and (c) the representativeness of samples. In the last area, researchers

54

Alternatiaes f rom Italian Communictitions Reseurch

should consider not only the limits of statistical validity of sample- forming criteria, but also such variables as l i tiguistic comprehension and linguistic functions, which previously have been largely ignored #( 13).

Clearly, satisfactory alternatives to traditional sociological niethotl- ologies have not yet been developed. However, the limitations of these methodologies must be investigated in order to understand the prevail- ing disagreements concerning the approach to communications prob- lems.

Even though researchers in general agree that communications research is in a state of crisis,

they differ in what they perceive to be the sources of this crisis and the way i t should be resolced.

Italian scholars who lean toward the Marxist schools tend to believe that the crisis in research results from inadeqiiacies of past research models and questions. They criticize researchers for being content with the traditional model of commnnications and iinqiiestion- ingly accepting the lack of much change l(*5). They also criticize the failure of mass communications to address socially relevant issues (8). Even within the field, the Marxist critique cmntinues, researchers have failed to study relevant topics appropriately, such as the relationship of messages, communicators, and audiences to sociocultiiral contexts (4), the organization and distribution of cultiii-e, a r i d how the prevailing

55

Journal of Communication, Summer 1983

distributions of property and power and the doininant principles of control shape the structure of symbolic arrangenieiits. In the Marxist view, understanding the form of mass media requires understanding of the structure of its production and distribution institutions. It also requires recognizing the historical roots and inherent contradictions of these institutions. The goal of such considerations is the transformation of mass comniunications systems in relation to the transformation of society (11).

Sociologists who do not subscribe to the Marxist approaches believe that concentration on the stage of microresearch, instead of an emphasis on macrosociological aspects of mass communications based on theoreti- cal reference points (2), has contributed to the crisis. According to some sociologists, the prevalence of this research trend can be traced in part to the early days of Italian communications studies, when imported North American methodologies were uncritically and passively accepted.

These scholars also criticize researchers for not adapting to the new exigencies, problems, or questions raised. For example, Rositi (9) believes that the most significant catalyst for research has been the increasing clash of interests within the culture industry itself. In particu- lar, large areas of conflict have been observed in both the publishing and journalistic sectors. This conflict has resulted in a new appraisal of the entire domain of the culture industry, one that recognizes the impor- tance of sectors connected with the communications processes. More dynamic members of the research community have recognized the demand for new knowledge created by this conflict; they believe that this knowledge can be gained only with new conceptual and theoretical approaches. The lack of adaptability of current approaches has, in this view, contributed to the present research crisis (10).

A third type of explanation of the state of research, a s expressed in a number of Italian scientific journals, uses seniiotic concepts to locate the relevant causes for the crisis internally, within the theoretical practices ofthe discipline (6). These scholars cite some ofthe same reasons for the crisis as do researchers of other perspectives-reliance on the stimylus- response model for studying audience reception, too little investigation of broadcasting practices, arid overuse of simplistic content aiialysis- but also insist that even a broader sociology of mass communications would still be limited. Instead, they advocate the utilization of the contributions of semiotics and sociolinguistics.

Wolf, for example, employs sociolinguistic concepts to provide a precise description of the cornmimications process based 011 various levels of competence. Applied to broadcasting, for example, the

Wolfs analysis reflects the contribution of I>oth Italian and other European scholars. Among the Italians are P. Fabbi-i anti P. G. Giglioli. Some of the other Eiu-opeans are S. Hall, T. A. van Dijk, E. Bernstein, and W. Dressier.

56

Alternatices f rom Italian Communications Research

ges understood or decoded hy audiences is no longer attributed to the result of misunderstandings or nonhomogenous codes, but rather to the messages having their own internal logic derived from concepts of geiire, context, and pragmatics. Scholars using this approach, then, stress the necessity of considering the complexities of text arid the communicative situation in fiirthering the contributions of communica- tions research.

Yet another factor has contributed to the, crisis, although it has been either not mentioned or underestimated by Italian scholars. Communi- cations research has failed to develop adeqnate theory, methodology, and institutional support for the analysis of the role and implications of the new communications technologies. This situation cannot be blamed simply on researchers iinfiimiliarity with the technical aspects of the technology. Rather, this neglect is suggestive of the current relationship between researchers and society. Decisions on the introduction of new technologies are made b y politicians in accord with the army and corporate leaders. Researchers m a y investigate the social, political, and economic impacts of the introduction of k t new technology-but only after the technology has h e n introduced. Rarely have researchers been given the opportunity to explore the potential consequences of various alternative policy nieasures before the decision is made. Such studies could provide the public with some knowledge and potential inpiit into the political decisions that affect their future and could provide research with an important social role.

This analysis of the state of Italian communications research highlights three areas of research priority:

what are the important questions, how should they be approached, and what should be the scholars role in society?

First, research on topics related to the structures of the conmiunica- tions media should be of the highest priority. These topics incliide the socialization of broadcasters, the relationship between institutions and their prevailing ideologies, and sources of information available to the public. Such research, necessitated liy the ceiitrality of communications technologies to social coi~ceriis, can also foster debate on the relation- ship between the type of research conducted in Italy and the source of funding and political support. This relationship is complex: the conimu- nications indi.istry itself is situated in a ciiltural field that is divided into commercial versus public-sponsored sectors, and this opposition creates more than idt:ological tensions.

Second, researchers should acknowledge the existence ojf other branches of study and recognize their relationship to and use in analyzing the communicative processes. New paradigms must be intro- duced in order to widen the scope ofresearch. Even scholars who do not

57

Journal of Cornmimication, Summer 1983

see the immediate relevance of theories from semiotics, sociolinguistics, and textual grammar would do well to recognize their value in other areas.

Finally, the development of new communications technologies should be studied, not in terms of the conventional distinctions between media that technological developments have superseded, but rather in terms of the relationships between the different branches of the commu- nications industry and how these relationships affect the development of technology and policy. Although research and researchers cannot devel- op outside of society, a goal of this research (and research in general) nevertheless should be to strive for autonomy from external influences. Social research should receive public support for the exploration and development of alternative technological and political choices. This information, made publicly available, could in turn enable the public to be involved in the decisions on their own future.

In the present situation, at least in Italy and possibly elsewhere, it may seem naive to advocate this type of relationship between the researcher and society. But rather than simply rejecting its possibility out of hand, it.might be more fruitful to wonder why this social role of research has been relegated to utopia.

REFERENCES

1. Bechelloni, G. La macchiraa culturule i n I tal ia . Bologna: I1 Mulino, 1974. 2. Bechelloni, G. Si fa ancora ricerca alla Rai-Tv? Problemi delllnformazione 1(4),

3. Bechelloni, G. Appunti per iina lettura critica dellattuale dibattito. Problemi dell

4. Cesareo, G. La televisione sprecuta. Milan: Feltrinelli, 1974. 5. Cipriani, I. La televisione. Rome: Editori Rinniti, 1980. 6. Fabbri, P. Le comiinicazioni di inassa in Italia: sguardo semiotic0 e nialocchio della

sociologia. VS No. 5, 1973, pp. 7-21. 7. Interdisciplinary Center for Communications Science. Seminar on The Research on

Mass Communication in Italy, Florence, November 12-14, 1976. In La ricerca in Italia sulle comunicazioni di ma.ssa. Bologna: Forni, 1978.

8. Livolsi, M. La comunicuzione di mmsu. Milan: Angeli, 1981. 9. Rositi, F. Informazione e complessitu sociale. Bari: De Donato, 1978. 10. Rositi, F. Sistema politico soggetti politici e sistema delle comunicazioni di massa.

In Comunicazioni cli mussa e sistema politico. Milan: Angeli, 1982, pp. 75-90. 11. Vacca, G. La ciiltura dei media nella sinistra italiana. In C. Richeri (Ed.) I 1 oideo

negli anni80. Bari: De Donato, 1981, pp. 3-24. 12. Wolf, M. Gli appara t i clelle comunicazioni di massa. Florence: Guaraldi, 1977. 13. Wolf, M. Sociologia dellu uitu quotitliana. Rome: Espresso Strumenti, 1979.

October-December 1976, pp. 675-680.

Informazione 2( l), January-March 1977, pp. 47-52.

58